Development of a Future Orientation Model in Emerging...

Social Change Review ▪ Winter 2016 ▪ Vol. 14(2): 69-95

DOI: 10.1515/scr-2016-0023

Development of a Future Orientation Model in Emerging Adulthood in Hungary Zsuzsánna E. Horváth¹, Erzsébet Nováky2 ∗∗∗∗ ¹ University of Southern Queensland, School of Linguistics, Adult and Specialist Education, West Street, Toowoomba Qld 4350, Australia. 2 Corvinus University of Budapest, Department of Human Geography and Sustainable Development, Fıvám tér 8, 1093 Budapest, Hungary.

K E Y W O R D S

A B S T R A C T

Concern Future orientation Norms Predictive modelling Values

Social and economic sustainability of countries globally largely depend on how well educational structures are capable of empowering future generations with skills and competencies to become autonomous and active citizens. Such competency is future planning, which is vital in the identity formation of youth in their developmental phase of emerging adulthood. The article below attempts to elaborate a predictive model of future orientation based on current and future norms, future interest and concern. The model was tested on a sample population of business school students (N=217) in their emerging adulthood. Norm acceptance ranking proved to be different for present and future times. Amongst a number of contextual variables shaping the formation of future plans concern has been found to hold the strongest predictive power.

Introduction

The purpose of this paper was to elaborate a complex predictive model of

future interest of students, based on their assessment of current and future

values and the contextual variables responsible for the formation of these

value systems. The model draws on the time shift in the focus of value

systems from the current educational environment to the students’ prospect

∗ Contact address: [email protected] (Z. E. Horváth)

Brought to you by | Corvinus University of BudapestAuthenticated

Download Date | 3/29/17 1:11 PM

Z. E. Horváth and E. Nováky – Development of a Future Orientation Model …


70

(professional or other) life beyond. The model has been developed following

a set of hypotheses, each targeting the predictive relationships between

students’ contextual variables (both institutional and private) and the set of

values. It has been also hypothesised that the current value set (and the

contextual variables affecting it) will differ from the future value set (and the

contextual variables impacting upon them).

Assessment of current and future values can assist educators in having

a better idea of youth in their developmental phase of emerging adulthood.

Generation Y – as the current cohort in their emerging adulthood is called –

is known to be guided by and hold a very different set of values than

previous generations of youth. Age-cohort analysis is particularly interesting

as it is perceived to be one way of forecasting the near term future and can

answer the question how institutions might change as a particular age group

matures and gains status and power (Inayatullah et al. 2006).

The current paper therefore also contributes to informing institutional

change by identifying how educational institutions assist students in their

preparation for their future. It has been argued in recent literature (Trani

and Holsworth 2010; Varblane and Mets 2010; Veroszta 2010) that education

institutions and tertiary institutions in particular, in the enactment of their

third mission have to have a responsible thinking about future generations.

This mission has been articulated around this principle of social

sustainability.

The methodological approach will draw upon a theoretical integration.

This technique offers the possibility of piecing together theories in an

attempt to clarify relationships between variables and ultimately increase

variance explained by the integrated model where prior attempts were

based solely on a single-level of explanation. Such an approach is deemed

appropriate in studies which are exploratory in nature. There are generally

three goals of theoretical integration (Rieckmann 2012; Muftic 2009). The

first goal of integration is theory reduction when there are several

concurrent theories competing against one another in an effort to essentially

explain the same type of behaviour. Theory reduction is proposed as one





71

way to decrease the number of theories on future orientation, allowing

researchers to focus on a smaller number of theories. The second goal is to

increase explained variance. The third goal of theoretical integration is

theory development through the clarification and expansion of existing

propositions and theoretical concepts (Muftic 2009). In the career

development field, notions emerging in the post-industrial context have

drawn attention to the necessity for personal malleability, resilience, and

responsiveness to change in order to thrive in the contemporary world-of-

work. Concomitantly, there is a need to recognise that learning for and in the

world of work requires theoretical perspectives that assume in their tenets

the complexity of managing a career throughout the lifespan, extending

from the age of schooling to post-retirement (Jasman and McIlveen 2011).

Literature review

Future orientation

Future orientation (Nováky and Várnagy 2013; Hideg and Nováky 2010) is a

way human thinking manifests itself, where thoughts are filled with

preconceptions, imagination and expectations. It is perceived as an organic

part of a person’s general orientation and existence concerning events in

their own environment, reasons, goals and consequences of their own

actions (Hideg and Nováky 2010). It also entails the ability to plan for the

future. Persons with high future orientation are characterized as pursuing

their goals and engaging in daily planning of their activities, and preferring

a problem-solving approach. Those who are highly future-oriented believe

in their own ability to produce a desired effect and to lead a more active and

self-determined life (Luszczynska, Gutiérrez-Doña, and Schwarzer 2005).

Future orientation or the lack of it can enhance the well-being of societies, or

conversely, make the entire society more vulnerable to changes (Hideg and

Nováky 2010). This vulnerability especially permeates the handling of future

uncertainty and risk management. A panel of contributing panellists in the

Hungary 2025 compilation on the future prospects of the country concluded





72

that although thinking about the future has become more widespread,

future attitudes are more active and less frightening, and expectations

concerning the future have improved considerably, there are still some

lurking worsening trends (Hideg and Nováky 2010; Molnár and Vass 2013;

Pál 2013). Future-oriented actions and concepts are very limited and a

growing number of children are raised in families fearing the future (or

future-shocked) (Hideg and Nováky 2010; Inayatullah et al. 2006).

Ultimately, Hungarian society has become more vulnerable to imminent

changes and challenges as consequences of the growing social inequality,

economic stagnation and declining interest in democratic institutions.

Hence, an increasingly wide strata of the population came to be affected by

the unwelcome attitudes towards the future (Hideg and Nováky 2010).

Thinking about the future, setting up goals and aims is not solely

determined by the mechanisms operating the individual, but by such

personal dispositions as: the belief in a just world, the external-internal locus

of control, and the mental health of the person. Beyond these factors, there is

a wider range of social and economic shifts that affect the entity, which

assert their effect through the agents of socialisation, and the above

mentioned personal dispositions. Findings show that the members of the

older generations place the time of realization of future plans closer, and

these are more controllable thanks to the clearer verbalisation of the set goals

in all walks of life (Mester 2012).

Future orientation, optimism and subjective well-being

Nurmi (1998) conceptualises the psychological process of future orientation

as containing the three sequential elements of motivation, planning and

evaluation. This planning activity requires a sense of optimism, which in

return can be theorized to influence human behaviour through its effect on

goal striving and motivation. As a disposition, it is expected that optimism

has relevance across diverse situations. Optimism (Huppert and So 2013) is

a generalized expectancy regarding future outcomes. Optimists, who hold

positive expectancies for their future, should also harbour optimistic beliefs





73

about their own ability to accomplish various goals. The pursuit lasts as long

as optimistic beliefs about possible success (that is, self-efficacy) are

sufficiently favourable.

Stabilising and enhancing the disposition of ‘meaning and purpose’ is

especially important in the case of youth in emerging adulthood in transit

from a relatively protective environment of formal or informal educational

setting to the world of work which requires an entirely different set of

attitudes and mindset. Youth have to face the continually changing and

‘uncertain’ world of work and their ‘survival’ depends on their adaptive

capacity. Meaning and purpose, together with optimistic future planning

constitute some important ‘ingredients’ of the feeling of subjective well-

being (Eiroá Orosa 2012; Caunt et al. 2012; Diener and Chan 2011). Future

generations’ subjective well-being can be moderated through teaching them

to discover and develop a sense of meaning and purpose that can function as

an internal compass leading them through hard times (Jasman and McIlveen

2011).

Passive future orientation – that is waiting for the future to ‘happen’

can be replaced by a number of future oriented activities that can help

individuals to actively shape their future. The most illustrious example of

the active future orientation is the sustainability movement where

governments alongside civil groups realising that ‘we are just borrowing the

future from our grandchildren’ engage in preserving ecological as well as

social environment (Molnár and Vass 2013).

Values and norms

Values are ‘roadmaps’ that define people’s orientation, behaviour and

judgement of situations, other people or attitudes. Values, based on their

rank in importance, can represent the snapshot of not only individuals, but

of entire societies as well. These values are arranged to a complex network of

values, where, other than the relative rank of values, various value clusters

can be detected (Ságvári 2011) . This hierarchical structure is a characteristic

feature of values, but not of norms and attitudes. Values are also connected





74

to personal goals and, therefore, there is a close connection between

motivations and values (Schwartz 2007). Personal value priorities serve as a

guide for human decisions and action. Schwartz and Boehnke (2004) defined

values as abstract beliefs about the desirable goals – ordered according to

relative importance –, which guide individuals as they evaluate events,

people and actions. Individuals’ value priorities relate systematically to their

personality traits, attitudes, and behaviour (Schwartz and Bilski 1987). Thus,

values guide individual decision-making and motivate behaviour that is

congruent with them (Schwartz 1992).

Norms and attitudes are related concepts which are often confusing

and a brief clarification might be useful at this point (Ságvári 2011;

Fukuyama 2001). Social norms are the generic rules of behaviour that a

community observes and which is imposed upon its members. Any

deviance from the norms are penalised by a system of sanctions (Merton

1968). The purpose of these norms is to make individuals’ behaviour

predictable, enabling cooperation between the members of the community.

Attitudes, on the other hand, are individual and group reactions to certain

objects, persons and situations, signifying a conscious or non-conscious

acceptance of values carried by them. Attitudes are less abstract than values,

that is, they are higher order components in human beings’ inner cognitive

structure. ‘Our values organise and define our past, present and future. Our

values orientate us, regulate the use of physical and mental energies,

delineate our community belonging and social self’ (Ságvári 2011) .

Importance of family/environment/social norm in the formation of values of

youth in emerging adulthood

Recently Arnett (2007) proposed a stage that he calls emerging adulthood

that encompasses roughly the ages of 18 to the late 20s and includes Super’s

(Brown and Lent 2004) transition stage and continues into his exploration

stage. Emerging adulthood is a psychological stage that includes career

development and can be described by five features that show how emerging

adulthood differs from adolescence and young adulthood (which follows





75

emerging adulthood): the age of identity explorations, the age of instability,

the self-focused age, the age of feeling in-between, and the age of

possibilities (Jensen and Arnett 2012; Arnett 2007; Arnett 2011; Cote 2006).

The age of identity entails the making of crucial choices about work and

love. In work, youth are choosing jobs that fit with how they see themselves,

considering available opportunities.

This period is an age of instability in that young people may be

changing jobs, or trying new areas of study in college or graduate school.

This time of life can be seen as a self-focused age because individuals have

few responsibilities and may be able to concentrate on career decisions and

their potential effects. This period is referred to as the age of feeling in-

between because young people are likely to feel that they are neither

adolescents nor adults, but on the road to becoming adults. In addition, it is

called the age of possibilities or hopeful expectations because young people

are likely to feel that their life will get better (Jensen and Arnett 2012),

although country specific research shows that in Hungary the projection of

hopes and hopeful thinking diminishes with age (Rédei, Kincses, and Jakobi

2011). This life stage is typically characterized by protracted identity

exploration therefore the name: ‘emerging adulthood’ (Arnett 2011).

The impact of society on the individual’s acquisition of values cannot

be disregarded. Family provides the first and most secure environment for

the young persons and as their socialisation takes place, they learn and

become conditioned by the subsequent forms of educational institutions and

other forms of community life. The impact of family bonds cannot be

disregarded throughout an individual’s life. In educational settings, the

norms conveyed and taught offer the nearest strong bond to the family’s set

of ethical and moral values. When the young person enters the world of

work, then a transition will take place between the norms and values

conveyed by the educational institution and the values and norms that the

workplace conveys and imposes on the individual (Jasman and McIlveen

2011; Ságvári 2011), resulting in a degree of dissonance between values

associated with these systems. All these norms are, of course, embedded in





76

the higher rank societal values that guide the functioning of the larger

community where the individual operates. With the shift in values, the rank

in importance can be altered within individual communities but within the

higher structure of society, as well. Furthermore, there are significant

differences between the value systems and norms embraced by different

generations within a higher stratum if society.

Generation Y value systems

The members of Generation Y were born between 1970 and the early 2000s.

A typical trait of the group is the ‘madness’ for practicality and technology,

because they have been brought up and used IT in their schooling (Pál 2013).

Generation Y have to develop a great degree of adaptive capacity to cope

with the rapidly changing environmental variables as brought forth by the

permeation of technological innovation in contemporary life. Immediate

channelling of information is required of the individual, which is taken to

the extreme in a way that what is not available on the internet is deemed to be

inexistent (Tari 2010). These youth are labelled as ‘hedonists’, ‘change-

makers’ (Pal 2013) ‘on the outlook for social innovation’, concomitantly

‘disappointed’ and ‘disillusioned’ in their civilian participation in polity and

although interested in charity work and philanthropy, ‘not going to the

elections’ (Print 2007; Lange et al. 2013). They are perceived to be supportive

of the idea of and need for government, but invariably perceive

governments as unresponsive, inflexible and ideologically driven by party

ideologies and special interests (Print 2007).

In some other areas, though, this youth demonstrate a highly-

developed sensitivity and responsiveness. Such areas are social change,

social responsibility and environmental consciousness: in 2012, the Walden

Report (Walden University 2012) on the responsiveness of international

students to social change and environmental consciousness found that

nearly all students believe they can make the world a better place by their

actions and when economic conditions are bad, it is more important to be

involved in social change than when economic conditions are good.





77

This hybrid and complex attitude, coupled with the liquidification of

societal norms and values (Bauman 2005) puts an enormous burden on

youth striving to distinguish between what is morally sound and what is

not. This generation has developed an entirely new vision of the world that

researchers call happy midi-narrative (Tari 2010; Pál 2013; Ságvári 2011), a

merge between two previous world visions, the metanarratives such as

Christianity, having a well-defined set of principles about past, present and

future, and the mini-narratives limited to short-sighted plans, such as what

shall I do today? A characteristic feature of this happy midi-narrative era is

that it conveys a future orientation, and albeit they tend to live for today and

not plan on the long term, in their ego-centred approach are in the search for

future expectations (Ságvári 2011).

This expectation has a significant impact on work-place settings,

environment and how youth perceive meaning in and of work. With Gen Y

representing the largest ever generational cohort to be joining the work

context, career goals and daily expectations is of utmost importance. Studies

demonstrate that particularly valued aspects are for organisations being fair,

equitable, supportive, socially aware, and charitable. Also, for the

organisation to offer training and graduate programmes and the

opportunity for Gen Y employees to be involved in collaboration and

organisational decision making, as well as to be recognised and valued for

their contribution to the organisation (Luscombe, Lewis, and Biggs 2013).

Gen Y employees also value being able to enjoy their work and to engage in

challenging work which utilised their existing skills and training.

Empowerment

Empowerment is an umbrella construct that is widely used across a number

of disciplines. It came to be discussed in the early 1960’s and was originally

conferring the meanings of, among others, having power, increasing self-worth

(Bartunek and Spreitzer 2006) . Since its original use, the concept has been

extended to sociology, education, psychology, social work and finally,

management disciplines, each of them applying it to describe distinct





78

phenomena. It was in the education discipline that control over destiny,

increasing knowledge, participation in decision making, enabling others, providing

resources, taking responsibility were introduced (Bartunek and Spreitzer 2006) .

Welzel and Inglehart (2013) establish a human empowerment

paradigm based on three pillars: existential, psychological and, finally,

institutional empowerment. The combination of the three pillars result in the

human empowerment:

‘extent to which people are capable, motivated and entitled to exercise universal freedoms (civic agency). In providing universal competencies that make students global citizens, Universities play a central role in human empowerment, that is, students’ faculty to act with a purpose; in other terms, their agency’ (Sen 1999).

In the knowledge economy of the 21st century, schools are accountable

(Laine et al. 2008) for the ways that they prepare their students to become

employable individuals. In their new function, they must be seen as

embedded ‘in’ society instead of being an autonomous entity, or an

institution ‘of’ society (Drucker 1993). Owing to the weakening efficiency of

the ‘mega state’ in resolving social and economic matters, a new awakening

of the citizenship is required, hence the recent increase in charity and

volunteer work, especially in the West (Print 2007; Lange et al. 2013;

Kennedy 2007). In the East of Europe, the need for community and

citizenship is especially intense as this sector had been entirely damaged, if

not totally destroyed according to some authors (Drucker 1993; Kennedy

2007). It will still take some time before the governments of these countries

can completely carry out their tasks, as they had been entirely discredited in

the past (Drucker 1993). In their new function of a major player of the

knowledge economy, Universities face the responsibility to society at large

to educate and train generations of not only fully employable, but active

citizens that are fully operational globally (Kennedy 2007). Active

citizenship education is especially important in societies where the practice

of democratic participation is unsatisfactory or missing, like in the case of

Central and Eastern Europe (Varblane and Mets 2010; Drucker 1993).





79

Role of higher education in shaping values/future orientation

One of the most intriguing factors that societies across the globe have to

cope with is the change in the value systems and education. Situated at the

core of their transfer to youth in emerging adulthood, youth is more often

than not incapable or incapacitated to follow and implement these changes

as they occur (Kennedy 2007). Bauman (2005) warns us that society, leaving

‘solid’ and secure structures and paths is heading towards ‘liquid’ systems,

in which former societal patterns and values are being ‘liquidified’.

Oftentimes, the pace of ‘liquidification’ is so fast, that patterns and values

are not replaced by new ones. This transitional period challenges

educational systems to a degree formerly unheard of.

It is widely accepted among scholars that schooling in itself

strengthens future-orientation and related thinking (Inayatullah et al. 2006;

Luthans, Stajkovic, and Ibrayeva 2000; Moscardo and Murphy 2011; Ng and

Feldman 2007; Rubin 2013; Gaspar 2013; Laine et al. 2008) It has also been

argued that the sustainable future of societies depend on the preparation of

youth to encounter the uncertainties and insecurities of future by adequate

skills and competencies (Nováky 2010).

Trani and Holsworth (2010) begin their book on tertiary education’s

new role with the basic premise that colleges and universities are in the

midst of a major transformation that will redefine relationships to the

broader community. Colleges and universities are serving as developers of

social capital, providers of health care and as partners of regional

development to engage their communities (Lange et al. 2013). This affiliation,

coupled with the global movement toward a knowledge economy,

formulates the indispensable university that has ‘an ethical obligation to

contribute to the common good’ (Cuthill et al. 2010). One of the roles of the

Business Schools’ third mission being the education of future generations of

youth that are empowered and engaged citizens. Jasman and McIlveen

(2011) highlighted in their paper that educational institutions can secure the

empowerment of their students by maintaining a positive orientation to





80

creating learning opportunities (commitment to life-long learning for all);

and understanding the ‘bigger’ and more complex picture in order to take

account of a wider range of factors and circumstances both within and

beyond the immediate context.

Having identified and assessed the context and variables contributing

to the formulation of future orientation of youth in emerging adulthood, the

following research questions seem opportune and justified:

RQ1 How does the assessment of norms impact current and future

values?

RQ2 How do current and future norms guiding current and future

value sets differ when assessing them in the continuum?

RQ3 How do contextual variables predicting students’ future

orientation differ in their levels of significance?

Predictors of future orientation – the model

Methodology

The convenience sample of the survey consisted of a cohort of tourism and

hospitality students of a Hungarian Business School, all 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year

students, having taken Entrepreneurship course in the framework of

compulsory module. The paper-based auto fill-out survey, although directed

at a more complex research objective, included a number of items

addressing the above research questions and used different Likert-scales,

each adjusted to the nature of the question. The survey has been

administered by means of paper-based questionnaires and distributed and

received from a totality of 212 students, all attending a specific lecture at a

given survey time. The response rate was, in these special circumstances,

100%. The distribution of females in the N was 59.4%, and the average age:

24.7 yrs. 75% of all students were, at the time of the survey, involved in

active work, either in part-time employment, or in work placement, as a part

of their course requirement.





81

Measures

Measures have been developed based on relevant literature sources, in

particular as follows: Pusztai et al. (2012); Nováky (2010); Veroszta (2010);

Molnár and Vass (2013); and, following the advice of Luszczynska et al.

(2005), only those with good psychometric properties were included. All

measures included in the study had obtained satisfactory validity and

reliability.

The construct of Current values has been measured by Section 1 of the

questionnaire using terminal value measures developed by Rokeach (1973)

and used by others in values research. The relevant section included the

question: ’Please indicate how important you find the following values.’

(1=very unimportant, 10= very important), and allowed for the assessment

of 21 separate value items, ranging from ‘family’ to ‘learning, education’ and

‘environmental protection’.

Current norms have been measured by section 2 where respondents

were provided the question: ’In the constitution of your own set of values,

please assess the influence of:’, and 10 distinct choice items, typical options

being: ’peer guidance’, workplace norms, University values and norms’.

The construct Empowerment has been designed to consist of two

subscales depending the institutional framework that is hypothesised to be

at the origin of the empowerment. It has been derived from sections 17 and

18 of the questionnaire, based on the question: ’How satisfied are you with

your University’s delivery of the followings?’ and ‘How satisfied are you

with your industrial practice delivering the followings: (if not attended,

what are your expectations regarding) and included 6 items, amongst which:

’entrepreneurial competencies’, ’responsible thinking/planning about the

future’. Students’ perceived level of satisfaction has been measured by a

scale range from 1 for the least satisfied position to 100 for the most satisfied

one.

The construct of Future interest has been measured by section 11:

’Please indicate your level of interest in the following entities’ and included

8 items like: ’family’, ‘network of friends’ ‘workplace’.





82

Future norms are conceptualised as the contextual variables that are

perceived to have impact on the formation of interest in the future and have

been measured by section 10 of the questionnaire and students indicated the

importance of each of 10 norm items on the scale. Items were identical with

the Current norms.

Future plans referred to the forward thinking of the students and the

time frame in which they are making plans. They had to assess if they had

any ‘concretised idea of what they want to achieve in the next 5/10/15

years’, answering yes (1) or no (2).

Future concern has been articulated as an attitudinal trait derived from

optimism. In section 9, it asked the respondent to assess certain statements

like: ‘I control my future’ and ‘I am concerned about my future’, the answer

options being: ‘not at all likely’ (1) to ‘wholly likely’ (4).

PLS-SEM

For the estimation of our Predictors of Future Orientation model with

empirical data, we use the PLS (Hair Jr et al. 2013) path modelling method

and the SmartPLS 2.0 software application (Ringle, Wende, and Will 2005).

The goal of predictive modelling used in the research has been to establish a

theoretically grounded model that has high predictive power, and it

differentiates itself from traditional CB-SEM modelling viewed as

explanatory and confirmatory tools. Prediction relates to a situation where a

theory leads to the forecast of some relevant outcome (Bagozzi and Yi 2012),

its concept originating from an econometric perspective and is defined as

‘the estimate of an outcome obtained by plugging specific values of the

explanatory variables into an estimated model’ (Woolridge 2003, 842).

Partial Least Squares (PLS) is commonly used in the social sciences,

especially in business research disciplines. More specifically, information

system researchers paid substantial attention to this technique due to its

ability in modelling constructs in the case of small to medium samples and

non-normality. PLS can perform factor analysis combined with path analysis





83

and then the two methods can be used to estimate the significance (t-value)

of each path (Hair et al. 2012) .

Three advantages for researchers in using PLS seem to have been

established: PLS works effectively with data from small sample sizes and a

large number of parameters; PLS has a high computational and statistical

efficiency; and PLS is flexible and versatile in dealing with problems that

may be solved. PLS provides indicators to evaluate reliability and validity,

for instance, item reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.

Furthermore, the goodness-of-fit can be evaluated in PLS. Several indicators

are utilized to test the validation of the measurement model, model fit, and

evaluation of the paths in the structural model. When PLS-Sem is applied,

the structural model displays the concept with its key elements or constructs

and cause-effect relationships with paths. Since the constructs are not

directly observed, we need to specify a measurement model for each

construct. To ensure the validity of our analysis, we adjusted the dataset by

carrying out a missing value analysis and applied case wise deletion. All

latent variables use a ‘mode A’ specification for their items (i.e., manifest or

observed variables) in their measurement models, which is associated with

reflective measurement (Hair et al. 2012).

Measurement model analysis

Measurement model parameter estimates and diagnostics provide evidence

for the reliability and validity of the reflective construct measures. All multi-

item scales exhibit composite reliability (rc) values well above the commonly

suggested thresholds of .70 for rc and there is argument for the acceptance of

less than .50 for the AVE (average variance extracted) values for

discriminant validity.

Table 1 presents the results of the first iteration of the testing of the

measurement model and how each observed variable relates to their

construct. To analyse and evaluate the PLS path modelling results, reliability

and validity we follow recommendations by Henseler et al. (2014) and Hair

et al. (2013).





84

A few interesting observations seem to be relevant when assessing the

item loadings on the constructs. Item loading can explain the power by

which the constructs are explained and as such, their ranking is informative

of the views of the respondents in the matter. For example, higher item

loadings mean that the respondents view those more prevalent in the

formation of their opinions when responding to the items in the constructs.

The current ranking of values can also serve as a justification or rebuttal of

the perceived views on generation Y values. Present values consist of items

that demonstrate altruistic value: acting for the benefit of society in particular

display a high factor loading. This is in line with the assessment of

researchers saying that Y generation members ‘want to be part of the

solution and not just benefit from the actions of others’ (Walden University

2014), resulting in an emerging sense of social responsibility, more powerful

than other generations have (Pál 2013) . Education and learning is found to

be the lowest ranking on their agenda.

In the case of the construct of Empowerment, the concern for these

altruistic purposes as seen by the ranking of the items duly follows the

pattern described above. Youth feel empowered by or display high

expectation levels as to the experience delivered them in the workplace in

the domains of social responsibility and civic engagement (Luscombe et al.

2013). Constructs such as Current norms, and Future Orientation context

will be explained further below.





85

Table 1. Outer path analysis

Items loading on constructs

Present Values

Present Norms

Em power- ment

Future Interest

Future Norms

Future Plans

Future Concern

Acting for the benefit of society .798 Job security .776 Environmental conscientiousness .761 Education, learning .638 Workplace values guidance .806 University guidance .780 Societal norms .745 Peer guidance .677 Globalisation .670 Responsibility for society (work) .780 Active citizenship (work) .762 Planning for future (university) .733 Generation Y values (work) .715 Entrepreneurial competencies (work) .709 Responsibility for society (university) .707 Active citizenship (university) .703 Generation Y values (university) .693 Planning for future (work) .672 Practical knowledge (university) .651 Entrepreneurial competencies (university) .646 Practical knowledge (work) .619 Interested in peers' future .772 Interested in University's future .74 Interested in family's future .713 Societal norms guidance .833 Workplace values guidance .817 Uni guidance .799 Family guidance .729 Peer guidance .719 Plans for 10 yrs .848 Plans for 15 yrs .772 Plans for 5 yrs .670 Not interested in the future .946 Can hardly influence future .595

Structural model

Two main indicators can be used to evaluate the relationships between the

paths in the PLS structural model: R2 Coefficient of determination) values,

and standardized path coefficient. R2 values of the dependent variables

represent the predictiveness of the theoretical model and standardized path

coefficients indicate the strength of the relationships between the





86

independent and dependent variables. Regarding measuring the power of

R2, three levels were suggested: .670 substantial; .333 moderate; and .190

weak. Three levels of cut-off were adopted to assess the strength of path

coefficient: .2 weak; value between .2 and .5 is moderate; and more than .5 is

strong.

The coefficient of determination (R2) is typically used as a criterion of

predictive power (Hair et al. 2013). Table 2 presents the quality criteria of the

structural model.

Table 2. Structural model overview

AVE Composite

Reliability

R2 Cronbach αααα

Current Norms .544 .856 0 .793

Current Values .559 .834 .167 .734

Empowerment .491 .920 0 .907

Future Norms .610 .886 0 .840

Future Interest .550 .786 .301 .628

Plans .588 .809 .115 .643

Concern .625 .760 0 .466

Evaluation of the prediction-oriented PLS path modelling method’s

results for the structural model centres on the R2 values. Figure 1 presents

the structural model of the future orientation. The key target construct of the

model, ’Future Interest’, exhibits a moderately high R2 value of .301 (i.e., the

Predictors of Future Orientation model explains overall Future Interest by

3.1%), whereas ’Current Values’ are explained by 16.7% (R2=.167), and

‘Future Plans’ by 11.5 (R2=.115), respectively. The standardized path

coefficients provide the basis for assessing the relative importance of

relationships in the Predictors of Future Orientation model. Internal

consistency displayed suggested minimum levels (α>.65) for all latent

constructs, except for ‘Concern’. It is suggested that in exploratory phases of

analyses and predictive modelling, Cronbach α values in the proximity of .5

be still accepted.





87

Figure 1. Predictors of Future Orientation Model

To test whether path coefficients differ significantly from zero, we

calculated t-values using a bootstrapping routine (Henseler et al. 2014). The

analysis substantiates that all relationships in the structural model have

statistically significant estimates.





88

Table 3. Significance testing results of the structural model path coefficients

Relationship Path coefficient

Strength t-value

Current Norms -> Values .409 strong 32.127∗∗∗

Current Norms -> Future Interest .131 weak 14.6686∗∗∗

Current Norms -> Plans -.164 weak 1.0746∗∗∗

Values -> Future Interest .32 moderate 19.9546∗∗∗

Empowerment -> Future Interest .165 weak 8.78∗∗∗

Empowerment -> Plans -.036 weak 2.6369∗∗∗

Future Norms -> Future Interest .307 moderate 24.0901∗∗∗

Future Norms -> Plans .176 weak 12.8111∗∗∗

Concern -> Plans .266 moderate 16.7464∗∗∗

Note: ***<.001

Discussion

Predictive path analysis of the model provides some interesting insights into

how future orientation is formulated. In particular, the relationship between

norm guidance (context) and current and future value sets can be observed.

Prediction by current norm guidance is more significant than future norm

guidance suggesting that youth are less sure about constituents of the future

norm guidance therefore cannot estimate with certainty how future

guidance will influence future values or interests. What they are more

certain about is how the current values shape the future value system,

probably because it is perceived to be an extension of the current value

system as this is tangible and known.

Empowerment is negatively correlated to plans, which can be explained

by one or both of two processes: the perception of being empowered is at a

low level at the onset, and therefore inversely impacts the formation of the

future plans; or the formulation of plans is seen as a highly uncertain process

which is not so much the result or a consequence of an empowered state, but

the negative outcome of the impact by concern. Curiously, the state of being

empowered positively contributes to the formation of future interest, while





89

the effect of empowerment on the formation of future plans is inverse, that

is, uncertain suggesting the complex nature of the phenomenon. Future

interest, as an extension of the current value sets seem to be more stable and

youth is capable of controlling its formation, whereas their agentic

demeanour is less likely to act upon the formation of future plans.

By the same token, the formation of future plans is negatively related

to the current value guidance norms or context. This goes hand in hand with

the previous observation that plans are not foreseeable and palpable, and

there is a great extent on insecurity and uncertainty in their formation. On

the other hand, when thinking about future plans, it is much more the future

value guidance norms that will have an eventual impact and thus shape the

plans. Plans are definitely and significantly affected by future concern

(observation resulting from the second highest path coefficient after current

norm guidance impacting current value sets).

The findings of the survey inform our understanding of the difference

students’ assessment of how significantly their value sets are influenced by

current and future norms. Table 4 provides information on the differences in

ranking. For instance, whereas at present, still being under the protective

umbrella of the University, but either already actively engaged in job

hunting or working part-time and understanding the scarcity of

employment, they are inevitably influenced by workplace norms. During the

industrial training/practice they had a grasp on the importance of aligning

with workplace values, or, as work and employment is a central focus of

their orientation, they centre their activities and behaviour on projected

workplace values. Workplace norms are not perceived to be such important

in the ‘Future Norms’ as in the future, having found an employment, future

young people expect to align more to the social norms. This will guide them

through multiple roles and functions that they have to fulfil: active workers,

parents, community members, citizens, etc. This cohort displays

characteristics of norm acceptance that is distinctly different in the two time-

frames: present and future. Other studies found that the highest percentage

of hope was to be found at the age-group of 18-19, and they were the ones





90

who trusted the most that their parents will support them in realizing their

goals (Mester 2012). The 23-26 year-olds were the ones mostly motivated by

the prospect of a job, and a family of their own, and to set aims related to

these topics. Younger people predicted the time-of-realization of their goals

concerning studies, job, and family to be a further date, in contrast with the

older generations. These findings correlate to Iovu’s (2014) findings who

concluded that peer support was the most significant and family support the

least significant variable in impacting future orientation and planning.

Table 4. Current and future norm rankings

Current Norm ranking

Item Loading

Future Norm ranking

Item Loading

Workplace values/guidance

1 .806 2 .817

Uni values/guidance 2 .780 3 .799 Societal norms/guidance 3 .745 1 .833 Peer values/guidance 4 .677 5 .719 Global politics/guidance 5 .670 - - Family values/guidance - - 4 .729

Conclusion

The research has provided timely and much-needed insight into how youth

in emerging adulthood approach formation of future orientation. It also

points out which contextual variables have significant impact on the process

of forming future plans. The findings provide support for the explanatory

utility of theoretically based investigations and, in particular, the importance

of considering values systems and guiding norms predicting Gen Y

individuals’ work expectations. Findings can prove particularly informative

for policy-makers in two distinct fields: education and employment.

Education, responsible for the foundations for the sustainable future of

societies, needs to prepare youth to successfully encounter the uncertainties

and insecurities of future. Training for adequate skills and competencies is

essential in this environment. In order to assess the performance of the





91

sector, and intervene with adequate adjustments in policy and delivery of

the policies, it is interesting to see how youth assess the educational

environment in terms of empowerment. Policy-makers of employment on

the other hand can gain insight from the findings in assessing how

workplace practice guidance contributes to the constitution of current value

sets and future interest.

In order to dissipate the concern (at times inherent) connected to the

formation of future plans, it is recommended to encourage and expand the

teaching to deal a lot with the future, to strengthen future orientation and

respect of futures studies, in order to accelerate related social learning

processes in Hungary (Hideg and Nováky 2010). Scholars in Hungary

widely agree that power in future can be derived from characteristic

adaptations and opportunity recognition instead of a pessimistic and

retrograde vision of the world (Mester 2012; Pusztai et al. 2012; Nováky and

Várnagy 2012).

References

Arnett, James J. 2007. “Socialization in emerging adulthood: From the family to the wider world, from socialization to self-socialization”. In Handbook of socialization: Theory and research, edited by Joan E. Grusec and Paul D. Hastings, 208-231. New York: Guilford Press.

Arnett, James J. 2011. “Emerging adulthood(s): The cultural psychology of a new life stage.” In Bridging cultural and developmental approaches to psychology: New Syntheses in theory, research and policy, edited by Lene Arnett Jensen, 255–275. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bartunek, Jean M., and Gretchen M. Spreitzer. 2006. “The Interdisciplinary Career of a Popular Construct Used in Management Empowerment in the Late 20th Century.” Journal of Management Inquiry 15 (3): 255-273.

Bauman, Zoltan. 2005. “A munkaetikától a fogyasztás esztétikájáig”. Replika, 51–52: 221–238.

Brown, Steven D., and Robert W. Lent. 2004. Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory and Research to Work. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.





92

Caunt, Benjamin S., John Franklin, Nina E. Brodaty, and Henry Brodaty. 2012. “Exploring the Causes of Subjective Well-Being: A Content Analysis of Peoples’ Recipes for Long-Term Happiness.” Journal of Happiness Studies 14 (2): 475-499.

Cote, Jerome. 2006. “Identity studies: How close are we to developing a social science of identity?—An appraisal of the field.” Identity 6 (1): 3-25.

Diener, Ed, and Micaela Y. Chan. 2011. “Happy People Live Longer: Subjective Well-Being Contributes to Health and Longevity.” Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being 3 (1): 1–43.

Drucker, Peter. 1993. Post-Capitalist Society. New York: Harper Collins. Eiroá Orosa, Francisco José. 2012. “Psychosocial Wellbeing in the Central

and Eastern European Transition: An Overview and Systematic Bibliographic Review.” International Journal of Psychology 48 (4): 437-727.

Fukuyama, Francis. 2001. “Social capital, civil society and development.” Third World Quarterly 22 (1): 7–2.

Hair, Joe F, Marko Sarstedt, Christian M Ringle, and Jeannette A Mena. 2012. “An Assessment of the Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing Research.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40 (3): 414-433.

Hair Jr, Joseph F, G Tomas M Hult, Christian Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2013. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Henseler, Jӧrg, Theo K Dijkstra, Marko Sarstedt, Christian M Ringle, Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Detmar W Straub, David J Ketchen, Joseph F Hair, G Tomas M Hult, and Roger J Calantone. 2014. “Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS Comments on Rӧnkkӧ and Evermann (2013).” Organizational Research Methods 17 (2): 182-209.

Hideg, Éva, and Erzsébet Nováky. 2010. “Changing Attitudes to the Future in Hungary.” Futures 42 (3): 230–36.

Huppert, Felicia A, and Timothy TC So. 2013. “Flourishing across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual Framework for Defining Well-Being.” Social Indicators Research 110 (3): 837–61.

Inayatullah, Sohail, Marcus Bussey, Ivana Milojevic, eds. 2006. Neohumanist Educational Futures: Liberating the Pedagogical Intellect. Taipei: Tamkang University Press.

Iovu, Mihai-Bogdan. 2014. “How Do High School Seniors See Their Future?” Social Change Review 12 (1): 25-42





93

Jasman, Anne, and Peter McIlveen. 2011. “Educating for the Future and Complexity.” On the Horizon 19 (2): 118-126.

Jensen, Lene Arnett, and Jeffrey Jensen Arnett. 2012. “Going Global: New Pathways for Adolescents and Emerging Adults in a Changing World.” Journal of Social Issues 68 (3): 473-492.

Kennedy, Kerry J. 2007. “Student Constructions of ‘active Citizenship’: What Does Participation Mean to Students?” British Journal of Educational Studies 55 (3): 304-324.

Laine, Kari, Peter van der Sijde, Matti Lähdeniemi, and Jaakko Tarkkanen. 2008. “Higher Education Institutions and Innovation in the Knowledge Society.” In Proceedings of the Rectors’ Conference of Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences ARENE.

Lange, Dirk, Murray Print et al. 2013. Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building Democratic Citizens. Vol. 2. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Luscombe, Jenna, Ioni Lewis, and Herbert C Biggs. 2013. “Essential Elements for Recruitment and Retention: Generation Y.” Education+ Training 55 (3): 272–279.

Luszczynska, Aleksandra, Benicio Gutiérrez-Doña, and Ralf Schwarzer. 2005. “General Self-Efficacy in Various Domains of Human Functioning: Evidence from Five Countries.” International Journal of Psychology 40 (2): 80–89.

Luthans, Fred, Alexander D Stajkovic, and Elina Ibrayeva. 200. “Environmental and Psychological Challenges Facing Entrepreneurial Development in Transitional Economies.” Journal of World Business 35 (1): 95–111.

Mead, Margaret. 1978. Culture and Commitment. The New Relationships between the Generations in the 1970s. New York: Columbia University Press.

Merton, Robert King. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.

Mester, Dolli. 2012. “Impacts of Family Socialization on Young Adults’ Future-Oriented Goals.” Transylvanian Journal of Psychology 13 (2): 164-190.

Molnár, Péter, and Zoltan Vass. 2013. “Pessimistic Futures Generation for Pessimistic Future Generations? The Youth Has the Future but the Older Has the Authority.” Futures 45: 55–61.

Moscardo, Gianna, and Laurie Murphy. 2011. “Toward Values Education in Tourism: The Challenge of Measuring the Values.” Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism 11 (1): 76–93.





94

Muftic, Lisa R. 2009. “Macro-Micro Theoretical Integration: An Unexplored Theoretical Frontier.” Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology 1 (2): 22–71.

Ng, Thomas WH, and Daniel C Feldman. 2007. “The School-to-Work Transition: A Role Identity Perspective.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 71 (1): 114-134.

Nováky, Erzsébet, and Réka Várnagy. 2013. “Discovering Our Futures-a Hungarian Example.” Futures 45: 45–54.

Nurmi, Juhani M. 1998. “How do Adolescents see and create their future.” In Proceedings of the 6th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Adolescence, Budapest, 1998, 105-125. Budapest: Corvinus University of Budapest.

Pál, Emese. 2013. The Generation ‘Z.’ Pécs: Pecs University Press. Print, Murray. 2007. “Citizenship Education and Youth Participation in

Democracy.” British Journal of Educational Studies 55 (3): 325–345. Pusztai, Gabriella, Sergiu Baltatescu, Klára Kovács, and Szilvia Barta. 2012.

“Social Capital and Student Well-Being in Higher Education.” HERJ - Hungarian Educational Research Journal 2 (4): 54.

Rédei, Mária, Áron Kincses, and Ákos Jakobi. 2011. “The World Seen by Hungarian Students: A Mental Map Analysis.” Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 60 (2): 135–159.

Rieckmann, Marco. 2012. “Future-Oriented Higher Education: Which Key Competencies Should Be Fostered through University Teaching and Learning?” Futures 44 (2): 127–135.

Ringle, Christian M., Stephan Wende and Andreas Will. 2005. SmartPLS 2. Hamburg, www.smartpls.de.

Rokeach, Milton. 1973. Beliefs, attitudes and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ságvári, Bence. 2011. Kultúra és Gazdaság. Budapest: ELTE. Schwartz, Shalom H. 2007. “Value orientations: measurement, antecedents

and consequences across nations”. In Measuring Attitudes Cross-Nationally. Lessons from the European Social Survey, edited by Robert Jowell and Eva Roberts, 169-200. London: Sage.

Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. “Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries”. In Advances in experimental social psychology, edited by M. Zanna, 1-65. New York: Academic Press.

Schwartz, Shalom H. and Karl Boehnke. 2004. “Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis.” Journal of Research in Personality 38 (3): 230-255.





95

Schwartz, Shalom. H. and William Bilsky. 1987. “Toward a psychological structure of human values”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (3): 550-562.

Tari, Annamaria. 2010. Y Generáció. Budapest: Jaffa. Trani, Edward P. and Holsworth, Robert, D. 2010. The indispensable

university: higher education, economic development and the knowledge economy. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.

Varblane, Uwe and Thomas Mets. 2010. "Entrepreneurship education in the higher education institutions (HEIs) of post-communist European countries." Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 4(3): 204-219.

Veroszta, Zsuzsanna. 2010. “Felsıoktatási Értékek-Hallgatói Szemmel. A Felsıoktatás Küldetésére Vonatkozó Hallgatói Értékstruktúrák Feltárása. (Higher Education Values-from the Aspect of University Students Reveal of University Student Value Structures Concerning the Mission of Higher Education.)”. Ph.D. dissertation. Budapest ELTE.

Walden University, LLC. 2012. “Walden Students' Perceptions about Social Change.” www.waldenU.edu/impactreport.

Welzel, Christian, and Ronald Inglehart. 2013. “Evolution, Empowerment and Emancipation: How Societies Ascend the Utility Ladder of Freedoms.” World Values Research 6(1): 1-45.

Wooldridge, James M. 2003. Introductory Econometrics. A Modern Approach. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.



Development of a Future Orientation Model in Emerging...

Documents

Transcript of Development of a Future Orientation Model in Emerging...